Robert Seeberger wrote:
OK!
That's fair then.
I urge everyone (who cares about the subject) to provide some sort of
justification for their beliefs.
Without getting into the details of my beliefs or how they have changed
and enlarged over the years, I'll start with stating that I believe in
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Uh.I'm asking a serious question here Doug.
And to be perfectly honest, I would trust Erik to give a straightforward
answer (if there actually is one) more than anyone else participating in
this discussion.
If the answer is Its never actually been done or Its not
- Original Message -
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Uh.I'm asking a serious question here Doug.
And to be perfectly honest
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
An Invisible Pink Unicorn.
But this is a false impression, as The Unicorn Who
Watches Over the World is *not* pink, but a
silvery grey with 'blue roan'-type points.
No its not!
8^)
Is too!...INFINITY!
grin
It's fun
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Yet we live in a marvelous world, with such a
variety of living things: snow algae! snip
and us...the singing apes. All
of us made out of stardust. Frickin' *amazing*...
I could have written almost everything you
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Yet we live in a marvelous world, with such a
variety of living things: snow algae! snip
and us...the singing apes. All
of us made out of stardust. Frickin' *amazing*...
I could have written almost everything you
Robert Seeberger wrote:
OK!
That's fair then.
I urge everyone (who cares about the subject) to provide some sort of
justification for their beliefs.
I care about the subject, but not enough that I want to take the time
this month to really get into it. I think that if you read various
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
massive snippage
BTW, WTF an IPU?
An Invisible Pink Unicorn.
But this is a false impression, as The Unicorn Who
Watches Over the World is *not* pink, but a silvery
grey with 'blue roan'-type points.
As proof of the existence of The One Who
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Yet we live in a marvelous world, with such a variety
of living things: snow algae! tube worms at volcanic
vents in the bottom of the sea! terns that migrate
practically Pole-to-Pole! wildebeasts in their
herds-of-thousands! and us...the singing apes. All
of us made
Deborah Harrell wrote:
An Invisible Pink Unicorn.
But this is a false impression, as The Unicorn Who
Watches Over the World is *not* pink, but a silvery
grey with 'blue roan'-type points.
No its not!
8^)
Doug
___
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 08:13 am, Doug Pensinger wrote:
The reason I term myself Agnostic rather than Atheist is that though I
have no doubt that there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god that
watches over us and listens to our prayers, and absolutely no doubt
that the idea of heaven
- Original Message -
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Erik, could you give me a brief rundown on the repeatable experiments
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I do believe that since our scientific capacities
and capabilities are
increasing each day (and with them, our knowledge of
the universe) that it
is perfectly possible and imo, likely that science
will one day identify
God. But I don't
William T Goodall wrote:
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 11:23 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote:
It is impossible to prove that God either exists or does not exist
somewhere, anywhere in the universe with the exception of anecdotal
examples. Therefore, both belief *and* nonbelief in God are the
result
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 06:24:21PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote:
It's just not evidence that lends itself easily to scientific study.
And is therefore very poor information, not really evidence at all,
just anecdotes. One of the most important things about science is that
anyone, anytime who
---Original Message---
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Saying that
for hundreds or thousands of years, no one has publicized a repeatable
experiment demonstrating the existence of some god, therefore, for all
practical purposes, god does not exist
seems much closer to a
---Original Message---
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is impossible to prove that God ...exists... with the exception of anecdotal
examples.
Why does belief in anecdotal examples constitute faith? Is there some kind of
critical mass of anecdotal examples that constitutes
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:50:47AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
---Original Message--- From: Erik Reuter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Saying that
for hundreds or thousands of years, no one has publicized a
repeatable experiment demonstrating the existence of some god,
therefore, for all
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:53:46AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
---Original Message--- From: Jon Gabriel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] It is impossible to prove that God
...exists... with the exception of anecdotal examples.
Why does belief in anecdotal examples constitute faith? Is there
---Original Message---
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't necessary) then
god(s) don't exist.
Unforunately Wllliam, you aren't the final arbiter for humanity on the definition of
convincing.
To use just one
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 06:02:02AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
To use just one example, some 70% of Americans seem to have found the
evidence convincing - as has a significant supermajority of the entire
worlds population...
No, many of them believe different, contradictory things.
--
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 12:24 am, Reggie Bautista wrote:
As was discussed in another branch of this thread, many people *do*
feel they have evidence of the divine, in the form of numinous
experiences and apparitions and what some people see as a guiding hand
in their life, etc. It's
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 11:02 am, John D. Giorgis wrote:
---Original Message---
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't
necessary) then god(s) don't exist.
Unforunately Wllliam, you aren't the final arbiter
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:59:35 -0400
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:50:47AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
---Original Message
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:28:26 +0100
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 12:24 am, Reggie Bautista wrote:
As was discussed
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 05:53:46AM -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
---Original Message--- From
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Erik, could you give me a brief rundown on the repeatable experiments
performed in the past that tried to prove or disprove the existence of
deities or Deity. I'd also like to hear your opinion on the qualities that
would make or not make them good science.
And while
William T Goodall wrote:
What does the coelacanth is extinct mean?
And what did it mean 100 years ago?
Exactly! You seem to have grasped the point.
Until someone can produce some convincing evidence (a specimen isn't
necessary)
But it would be helpful!
8^)
then god(s) don't exist.
Doug
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:31:01PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
The statement is flawed. Saying a person is deluding themself simply
because the evidence they make their judgement on is unscientific is
wrong. If an atheist wants to say There is no
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 12:05:37AM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
You miss (or deliberately dodge) the whole point of what I wrote.
Your own words say it: ...science is the *best* way we have of
understanding and testing reality... (emphasis added)
No, I understood what you said, it is just
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 07:05 am, Michael Harney wrote:
Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. You
can't
prove a negative scientifically. Oops.
Science proves negatives all the time. That's what experiments are for.
No evidence for X *is* evidence against X.
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:48:18AM +0100, William T Goodall wrote:
Science proves negatives all the time. That's what experiments are
for. No evidence for X *is* evidence against X.
I would agree with the last statement, but not the first. Science
does not PROVE negatives, how is it possible
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 06:39:50AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote:
Perhaps part of our disagreement here is semantics, if you do not
agree that unreasonable and delusional are the same in this context.
I should clarify what delusional means when I use it.
Suppose I were to claim that I am
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:01:36PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
But if one is describing a being that is omnipotent, omniscient,
eternal, and infinite, then minds such as ours could not encompass
even the scope of such a being.
Speak for yourself, man! My mind is
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 12:13 pm, Erik Reuter wrote:
If you replaced proves with provides support for, then I would
agree
completely.
That's all 'scientific proof' means anyway, isn't it?
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog :
You can't prove a negative scientifically. Oops.
Actually, you can prove a negative. For example, I can state that
there are no large, visible pink elephants in the room with me right
now, and you and others can come and look; and if you do, you and the
others will not see any large,
From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:05:37 -0600
Show me scientific proof that no god exists. It can't be done. You can't
prove a negative
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:31 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I don't know where I saw it, but I've seen this argument referred to
in the past as the 'universal existential negative' argument, which
basically says you cannot prove that something (God) doesn't exist.
So what does 'the Dodo is
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:11:55 +0100
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:31 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote:
I don't know where I saw
---Original Message---
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean?
What does the coelacanth is extinct mean?
And what did it mean 100 years ago?
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 06:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean?
It means you haven't read The Ugly Chickens. ;)
I have!
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:42 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote:
---Original Message---
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So what does 'the Dodo is extinct' mean?
What does the coelacanth is extinct mean?
And what did it mean 100 years ago?
Exactly! You seem to have grasped the
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:01:33 +0100
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 08:18 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: William T Goodall
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:30:19 +0100
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 05:42 pm, John D. Giorgis wrote:
---Original
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 11:27 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:30:19 +0100
On Wednesday, July 9
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 06:23:55PM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote:
So, one may accurately say that both Atheists and Theists rely on
faith to support their conclusions.
No, I don't think that is true for any but the most extreme atheists.
Saying that
for
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 11:23 pm, Jon Gabriel wrote:
It is impossible to prove that God either exists or does not exist
somewhere, anywhere in the universe with the exception of anecdotal
examples. Therefore, both belief *and* nonbelief in God are the
result of faith and not
William T. Goodall wrote:
It seems to me it makes more sense to be agnostic about whether woolly
mammoths are extinct than about whether god(s) exist. After all, we have
evidence that woolly mammoths *did* survive until relatively recently, and
the world is a big place...
There is no evidence
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:33:28PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
For an atheist to say There is no god, and people who believe in any
god or gods are just deluding themselves. Requires faith. This
statement, while
On the other hand, a slight change
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:48:07PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
Wrong, that's faith based as well. The problem with that wording
is that there *is* evidence of a god. Documentation and reports of
apparitions, stigmata, healing of uncurable conditions through
prayer, other miracles, personal
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 07:33:28PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
For an atheist to say There is no god
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:01:36PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
But if one is describing a being that is omnipotent, omniscient,
eternal, and infinite, then minds such as ours could not encompass
even the scope of such a being.
Speak for yourself, man! My mind is certainly capable of the
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:48:07PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
Wrong, that's faith based as well. The problem with that wording
is that there *is* evidence of a god. Documentation and reports of
apparitions, stigmata, healing of uncurable
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: On the topic of atheism.
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:01:36PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
But if one is describing a being
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 09:31:01PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote:
The statement is flawed. Saying a person is deluding themself simply
because the evidence they make their judgement on is unscientific is
wrong. If an atheist wants to say There is no scientific evidence of
any god therefore
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 10:54:13PM -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Certainly, but neither your mind or mine can *be* those things.
Human minds are capable of abstraction. One's mind need not be infinite
to understand the concept of infinity.
I don't think that a gerbil could model human
56 matches
Mail list logo
